Definitely the color one. The B&W one has so much fine detail with a fairly narrow range of brightnesses for most of it that it looks visually messy, hard to tell one thing from another. The color makes it more coherent, easier to parse, for the eye and brain.

I would have preferred an image with a couple of isolated trees, though. The solid band of trees makes the eye wander in search of a focal point, which it never finds.

I hate to disagree with Lisa , but I prefer the B&W. The color doesn't seem to add anything for me.

In either one, I would like to see the shadows opened up a little bit more. At least on the web (and of course I always use the web to examine MF and LF images ), I can't get into the shadows as I would like.

Alain, are you referring to the tree trunks?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Essentially, because they are the largest area of highlights, but the other highlight areas are also too bright for me.

It's an issue of contrast. Basically: too much contrast. I can't tell if it comes from the light conditions or the processing. Light can be harsh, but it can be toned down through processing or through HDR. On the other hand contrast can be over-increased in processing resulting in harsh lighting effects, such as what I see in your image. Certain types of sharpening can do that as well, in particular USM because it works on the edges of objects, reinforcing the contrast essentially, which could very well have resulted in the excessive contrast here.

What's interesting about excessive contrast is that it is bothersome in small areas (such as the outline of objects) as well as in large areas (such as the tree trunks). That is because our eyes go to the areas of highest contrast first when looking at an image. When several areas have high contrast, our eye keeps jumping from one area to the next, making the image very tiring to look at. That is how I feel with this image (B&W version). Fixing the contrast problem is the first step in working towards an image that we can then evaluate for further work. Until that is done there is little that can be done about deciding "what else to do" because the contrast prevents a deeper analysis of the image.

Neither.Try going back when the light is actually good. This image doesn't deserve one second of thought. In fact it should have been deleted while looking at it on the digi cam. Of course this is just my opinion, not meant to offend.

Neither.Try going back when the light is actually good. This image doesn't deserve one second of thought. In fact it should have been deleted while looking at it on the digi cam. Of course this is just my opinion, not meant to offend.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

The photos on your WebSite are far more interesting...both the color and B&W hurt my eyes...

The subject is boring unless the image is to document the degradation of a once pristine pond and it's surrounding landscape for a Newprint or Tabloid article...

My 0.02 and not meant to offend either, though you are thick skinned enough to begin with...